Toronto municipal election, 2018

Well this rules out one possible high-profile challenger for John Tory.

David Nickle, "Former Toronto councillor Shelley Carroll running for her old job," Toronto Star, July 6, 2018

Wow!

That a boy Dougy! Straight back to hating Toronto again just like Mike Harris. 

What about all those mayors and councillors in the region of Peel? Oh ya right, still too many conservatives in Peel to mess with hey?

Is there a way to challenge Ford's move to cut the council size as a violation of the Charter?

Quote:

The surprise moves, which were never broached during last month’s provincial election campaign, come as the deadline for candidates entering the Oct. 22 municipal election looms at 2 p.m. on Friday.

“This is something the premier wanted to do even when he was on council,” said a senior government official, referring to the one term Ford spent at Toronto city hall between 2010 and 2014.

Huh.  Well, looks like he maybe always wanted to do it, and also looks like maybe he quite literally chose the last possible moment to do it.

Not sure it totally makes sense, though.  Not just because "fewer Councillors" but because ridings are drawn up to hopefully comprise a reasonable and consistent number of electors for a Provincial election, but that doesn't necessarily translate into the right number of constituents for a ward.  And if the boundaries are the same as for Provincial elections, I wouldn't like to see this herald a new dawn of Provincial and Municipal "melding" in the minds of the electors.  I don't think we really need wards to be "PC" wards or "Liberal" wards or "NDP" wards.

The calculation on amalgamating the 416 is that Etobicoke, North York, and Scarborough would always outvote Toronto, making for more right-wing majorities on council, and more right-wing mayors. The election of Rob Ford seems to prove that that worked.

Once the cities get smaller, it is much easier for Conservatives to walk away with the whole thing, except maybe a riding around the university and where the apartment buildings go. Once the city gets down to 200,000 or so, it can go totally blue, as in the Prairies.

Judge ruled against Ford's actions.

congrats Toronto peoples.

Summary of the ruling from press progress here:

http://pressprogress.ca/10-most-damning-quotes-from-the-court-ruling-str...

Apparently there will be a press conference around 2 where Ford will announce his response, there is some speculation he will indeed invoke the notwithstanding clause.

And use it he has. Everyone still happy about that clause available?

Bacchus wrote:

And use it he has. Everyone still happy about that clause available?

Has there ever been a lot of support for the Notwithstanding Clause on babble, or for that matter, the left generally? I suppose some progressives who endorsed Quebec's language laws might have been happy when Bourassa invoked it back in 1988, and if they were, they can't complain now about Ford doing the same thing.

But other than that, I don't recall a lot of progressives praising Section 33. Most people, myself included, seem to share Moriarty's view.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

I suppose some progressives who endorsed Quebec's language laws might have been happy when Bourassa invoked it back in 1988, and if they were, they can't complain now about Ford doing the same thing.

As I understand it, Bourassa eventually "uninvoked" it anyway (though I'm sure there was a brief period of chest-thumping and champagne for some).

Yes, it's the period of chest-thumping and cork-popping that's pertinent. If you're a progressive who thought in '88 that the invocation was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and/or now wishes that it had never been reversed, you have to accept Doug Ford's right to do the same thing.  

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Yes, it's the period of chest-thumping and cork-popping that's pertinent. If you're a progressive who thought in '88 that the invocation was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and/or now wishes that it had never been reversed, you have to accept Doug Ford's right to do the same thing.

What if I think Bourassa was solving the most important problem of his time -- "Pasta" signs -- but Ford is just using a giant legal sledgehammer to kill a fly he has a grudge with?

Why can't I have my cake, and eat it too?

Well, I just saw where John Tory has said that the Notwithstanding Clause exists for "extraordinary circumstances". by which he presumably means to exclude Ford's desire to shrink council.

Though, unless I'm misremebering my last reading of 33, I don't recall it saying anything about extraoridnary circumstances. As far as I know, that's up to the legislatures to decide.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Well, I just saw where John Tory has said that the Notwithstanding Clause exists for "extraordinary circumstances". by which he presumably means to exclude Ford's desire to shrink council.

I'm not at all in favour of Doug's little vengeance oath -- even as I don't fully understand what he's so mad at Toronto for, other than perhaps having some bike-loving "lefties" on council who used to oppose his Sainted Brother.

But I also don't fully understand what Tory means by "extraordinary circumstances".  Those peculiar circumstances in which the only way to ensure our survival is to ignore the judiciary interpretation of the Charter?  I agree with him that this is not the kind of problem that the "nothwithstanding clause" was meant to address, but I guess I don't share his understanding of what kind of problem it WAS meant to address.

Actually, I think the problem the NWC was meant to address was, quite simply, the problem of goverments having to obey Charter rulings they don't want to. Because that's about the only thing gleanble from a reading of the text. It's not as if the text says "This is for cases where the courts are stomping on language laws, or trying to stop teachers from talking about Jesus in the classroom". The criterion is simply that governments don't want to follow a particular decision of the court. 

And as such, Ford's agenda fits the bill quite nicely. The courts made a Charter ruling, he doesn't like it, Section 33 is on-hand to remedy that problem.

Now, whether the electorate will apporive of him invoking 33, and give him the chance to renew that invocation when it comes due five years from now, is another question.

i think the "extraordinary circumstances" tory refers to are that a government should normally be afraid of a backlash from the electorate when using nwc; and thus use it only where absolutely necessary to maintain or impose a vital interest (as defined by the invoking party.)

unfortunately, this is something not really applicable here in large part because ford's majority is so fresh - even if ontarians as a whole are disgusted by this move; will they really remember it so freshly by the time of the next provincial election? especially outside of toronto?

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Bacchus wrote:

And use it he has. Everyone still happy about that clause available?

Well, I was unhappy that PET was forced to make that concession when he repatriated the constitution, but without it, we would have no Charter of Rights at all.

Alan Blakeney the NDP Premier of Sask made it a deal breaker. I took a seminar course from him and when I asked him to explain it he invoked his Scottish heritage. The courts should not have the final say over parliament. It was a fundamental principal for him. However the idea of the Not Withstanding clause is you have to annouce to the nation that you don't care about the Charter you will rule as if it doesn't exist. As well it sunsets so future governments have to again say we don't give a fuck about that right. It was a tough compromise but if our courts get as corrupt as the ones to the south of us we will be glad they don't have the ultimate power to decide on what our rights are or are not.

kacey_cyborg wrote:

i guess it's technically possible to have the federal government invoke nwc to over-ride the ford bill 5 replacement right?

No, not really. The areas of jurisdiction of the federal and provincial governments are set out in the constitution. For example, criminal law is exclusively federal jurisdiction, and contract law is exclusively provincial, as is municipal government. The nwc does nothing to change this division of jurisdiction. Rather, it gives both federal and provincial governments the right to pass legislation within their own areas of jurisdiction even though that legislation contravenes a provision in the Charter of Rights. The 2 concepts are orthogonal as the mathematicians would say.

kacey_cyborg wrote:

ahh ok. and i guess the good government part of pogg is too general..

the lieutenant governor could always refuse royal assent, tho, no?

Yes. The peace, order and good government expression has generally been interpreted as assigning to the federal government any areas that are not clearly given to the provinces, although your suggestion that this case is specifically a matter of "good government" is an interesting one.

The lieutenant governor could theoretically refuse royal assent, and this is a federal appointment, so Ford could not fire the current one and appoint a replacement. However, this would precipitate a constitutional crisis with unpredictable results.

quizzical wrote:

not a constitutional crisis already?

In my opinion, because the use of the notwithstanding clause is specifically provided for in the constitution, it does not rise to the level of constitutional crisis, such as the King-Byng Affair.

Michael Moriarity wrote:

[...]

The lieutenant governor could theoretically refuse royal assent, and this is a federal appointment, so Ford could not fire the current one and appoint a replacement. However, this would precipitate a constitutional crisis with unpredictable results.

right. i wasn't trying to suggest it would be a likely play, more just trying to think thru possibilities -- i used to know all this stuff cold, but i am out of practice thanks to years of adulting mindlessly

Here is an excellent analysis of this case by a U. of Ottawa law prof. Her lede:

Carissima Mathen wrote:

Perhaps the most extraordinary thing about Justice Edward Belobaba’s decision striking down the law that reduces the size of Toronto City Council, is that it is not the most extraordinary thing to have happened Monday. That honour goes to Premier Doug Ford, who not long afterwards said he plans to use the Charter’s notwithstanding clause for the first time in Ontario history. In doing so, the Premier raised real concerns about his government’s respect for the rule of law. He appeared to question the idea that everyone, elected officials and their governments included, is accountable to the law.

Ford's intention is to proceed using the notwithstanding clause to overrule the court decision.

voice of the damned wrote:

The writer seems to be saying that Ford has an inadequate understanding of the relations between politicians, the judiciary, and the public,  hence his rationale for invoking 33 is invalid. But I don't see anything in her essay that refutes the argument that he has the legal right to invoke 33.

Back to my eariler comparison, I can write a twenty page thesis about why flat-earthers are wrong about the shape of the planet, and incorrect in their assumptions that science-teachers are all part of an evil plot to dethrone mankind from his central place in the universe. Doesn't change the fact that the law, as written, gives any parent who wishes to pull their kid from science class the right to do so.

I think the writer and I both agree with your first paragraph. Your description of her main point matches my own perception of it. But I found the article worth reading because it told the whole story from an expert constitutional law point of view, while including the broader political and social considerations that anyone who wishes our system to succeed in preserving people's rights needs to bear in mind.

Andrew Coyne in the Post...

...This is the insoluble paradox of the notwithstanding clause: The governments most likely to use it are the ones who can least be trusted to do so.

At any rate, the comparisons to Donald Trump look a whole lot more convincing after Monday’s performance. Ford’s more moderate colleagues, the ones whose presence in cabinet was supposed to be a reassuring check on Ford’s instinct for chaos, will need to search their consciences today.

But so should those liberal-minded types, well represented in the law faculties and the civil service, who have spent the last few decades concocting soothing rationales for the notwithstanding clause as a sort of prophylactic against charter abuse — it “implicates” the legislatures, and so on. It has always struck me as more in the nature of an unexploded bomb. In Ontario, it just went off.

I'm gonna say that Coyne is being overly optimistic about the chances of anyone in Ford's caucus doing much soul-searching about all this. I do agree that if you are someone who had defended the NWC in the past, you cannot now totally divorce yourself from what Ford is doing.

 https://tinyurl.com/y9gfb9mp

voice of the damned wrote:

the broader political and social considerations that anyone who wishes our system to succeed in preserving people's rights needs to bear in mind.

Well, I would assume that Doug Ford isn't one of the people who wishes our system to succeed in preserving people's rights.

Correct. I consider Ford to be criminal scum, who would be most happy as a mob boss.

I think the view on babble before today was that the provincial government had absolute power over municipalities (how many times has the BC Liberals/Socreds fired school boards).  So it is a bit of a shock to me that the court decided that this was a bridge too far. Then to have the government reach for the notwithstanding clause (do they have to recall the Legislature, is it a cabinet decision or can Ford just send out a tweet?).  Such a crazy state of affairs that it makes me wonder if it is diversion and Ontario residents are going to turn around tomorrow and find that some one picked their pocket.